The decision was made against the government department. Again, I gently point out to the noble and learned Baroness that it would be very unlikely that the government department headed by Mr Eric Pickles, who spent most of the election campaign denouncing the iniquities of unitary status for Norwich and Exeter, would appeal against the judgment by Mr Justice Ouseley. I think that is a rather fanciful objection.
We are witnessing a constitutional development that we need to ponder and that we should deliberate on very seriously. It seems to me—this perhaps reflects my old-fashioned view of the British constitution—an improper and dangerous development. I read with enormous interest, admiration and pleasure the recently published book by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, The Rule of Law. In that book, he counselled judges to walk delicately, like Agag in the Old Testament, and to proceed with very great caution when tempted to usurp the authority of Parliament. When the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, last Thursday repeated the Government’s Statement on their response to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, I asked whether the Government still accept that Parliament is the sovereign law-making body. She replied: "““As for the supremacy of Parliament, yes, of course it is supreme””.—[Official Report, 8/7/10; col. 385.]"
That was, to a degree, comforting, but there seems to be an inconsistency between her outlook upon this and the outlook of CLG because the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, made what seemed to me a very peculiar statement, coming from a Minister, in the debate at Second Reading: "““Judicial review became possible because they were orders, so it was a judgment not on a parliamentary decision, but on secondary legislation that arose from primary legislation””.—[Official Report, 30/6/10; col. 1833.]"
I think that is a curious statement. Does the noble Baroness really believe that the votes in Parliament to approve the structural change orders were not decisions made by Parliament? If not, what is the status of statutory instruments? Why does Parliament spend all these hours considering secondary legislation? There are thousands of statutory instruments every year.
In proposing to delete Clause 1(3), why are the Government hiding behind the High Court? Why do they not want Parliament to use its authority to cancel the laws that Parliament has made? Do this Government, or do they not, believe that Parliament and not the High Court is sovereign? Can the noble Baroness persuade us that this Government respect Parliament? The noble Baroness urged the House not to follow the procedure approved by the Speaker to refer a Bill to the Examiners where a reasonable case is made that it is hybrid. When the noble Baroness spoke at Second Reading, she described the moving of that Motion as, "““a somewhat dubious delaying tactic””.—[Official Report, 30/6/10; col. 1798.]"
I simply observe to the noble Baroness that among those who took a different view and voted in favour of the reference were two former heads of the Civil Service, three other Permanent Secretaries, four bishops, three very senior and distinguished judges, including the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—and I pay tribute to her because I thought it was an honourable vote on her part—and other extremely distinguished Cross-Benchers. They listened to the argument and took the view that the Government were misbehaving in opposing the reference to the Examiners. Whatever the noble Baroness thinks of my motives, I hope she will be respectful of their view.
Local Government Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Howarth of Newport
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 July 2010.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Local Government Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
720 c701-2 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 18:01:51 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_655956
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_655956
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_655956